[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Mahendra Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15387
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DEWANGAN
MCRC No. 2977 of 2026
Mahendra Verma S/o Rajkumar Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward
No.10, Uparwara Police Station - Abhanpur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh
(Particulars Of The Applicant Is Mentioned Correctly)
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station - Fingeshwar, District-
Gariyabandh (C.G.)
---- Non-applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
02/04/2026
1.
This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to
the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
12/2026 registered at Police Station, Fingeshwar, District-
Gariyabandh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections
20(B) of NDPS Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.01.2026, the police
authorities received an insider's tip-off that four persons travelling in
a Tata Safari car bearing registration No. C.G.-04-DM-5000 were
transporting a psychotropic substance, namely ganja and were
proceeding from Mahasamund via Fingeshwar Main Road towards
Rajim. Upon receiving the said information, the police authorities
immediately conducted a raid at the indicated spot. The vehicle was
intercepted and four persons were found inside the car, out of whom
two were juveniles. The names of the two major accused persons
are Ajay Sahu and Anand Ram Gaikwad. Upon search of the
vehicle, a total quantity of 19.423 kg of psychotropic substance
(ganja) was recovered from their joint possession and seized in
accordance with law. Thereafter, they were arrested on 14.01.2026.
It is further the case of the prosecution that, on the basis of the
memorandum statements of co-accused Ajay Sahu and Anand
Ram Gaikwad, it was disclosed that they were transporting the said
ganja at the instance of the present applicant, who had allegedly
provided them money to procure ganja from Odisha and deliver the
same at Abhanpur. On the basis of the said memorandum
statements of the co-accused persons, the present applicant was
arrested. After completion of the investigation, the police authorities
have filed the charge-sheet for the offences as mentioned in the
application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the true and correct
facts of the case are entirely different from those alleged by the
prosecution and that the present applicant has been falsely
implicated by the prosecuting agency. It is contended that no
psychotropic substance, namely ganja, has been seized from the
possession of the present applicant and the alleged contraband
recovered from the co-accused persons does not belong to him in
any manner. The applicant is not connected with the alleged offence
and has been falsely roped in due to previous enmity, as in an
earlier case registered under the NDPS Act against him, the
prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution,
and in order to teach him a lesson, the police authorities have
implicated him in the present case. It is further submitted that the
applicant neither knows the co-accused persons nor was he present
at the spot at the time of the alleged seizure and he has been
implicated solely on the basis of memorandum statements of the co-
accused persons, which have no evidentiary value in absence of
any corroboration. Even the alleged supplier, namely Praful Kumar
Sahu, from whom the co-accused persons are said to have
procured the ganja from Odisha, has not taken the name of the
present applicant in his memorandum statement. It is also argued
that the prosecution has failed to produce any Call Detail Records
along with the charge-sheet to establish any nexus between the
applicant and the co-accused persons. It is further submitted that
the applicant is in judicial custody since 14.01.2026, the
investigation has been completed, and the charge-sheet has
already been filed, therefore no further custodial interrogation is
required. The applicant is a poor person and the sole earning
member of his family and his aged mother is suffering from old age
ailments and is dependent upon him for her medical needs. It is
further contended that there is no direct evidence to establish the
involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence, and thus the
offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act is not made out
against him moreover, the prosecution has not invoked Section 29
of the NDPS Act relating to abetment or criminal conspiracy in the
charge-sheet. It is also submitted that the quantity of ganja allegedly
seized from the co-accused persons is 19.423 kg, which is below
commercial quantity. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no likelihood
of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution
evidence or influencing witnesses and therefore, considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, the present applicant deserves
to be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the
prayer for grant of bail and submits that the present case involves
serious allegations under the provisions of the NDPS Act, and a
substantial quantity of contraband (ganja) weighing 19.423 kg has
been seized from the co-accused persons. It is further submitted
that, on the basis of memorandum statements of the co-accused
persons, the present applicant has been found to be the main
person behind the transportation of the contraband, as he had
allegedly financed and directed the co-accused persons to procure
ganja from Odisha and deliver the same at Abhanpur. It is
contended that the role of the present applicant is not merely
incidental but is that of a key conspirator and therefore his
involvement cannot be ruled out at this stage. Learned State
counsel further submits that the offence alleged is grave in nature
and has serious impact on society, and therefore the applicant does
not deserve the benefit of bail. It is also argued that there is sufficient
material available on record to prima facie connect the present
applicant with the commission of the offence, and merely because
no contraband was recovered from his possession would not entitle
him to bail at this stage. It is further submitted that if released on
bail, there is likelihood that the applicant may abscond or influence
the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that the present
applicant has four criminal antecedents, out of which one case
pertains to the NDPS Act, in which he is presently on bail and the
matter is still pending for prosecution evidence. Therefore, it clearly
indicates that the applicant is a habitual offender and does not
deserve the benefit of bail. Accordingly, his bail application is liable
to be rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. From perusal of the case diary and material available on record, it is
apparent that a hue quantity of 19.423 kg of ganja has been seized
from the possession of the co-accused persons and on the basis of
memorandum statements of the co-accused, the present applicant
has been implicated as the person who had allegedly financed and
directed the procurement and transportation of the contraband.
Though no contraband has been seized from the present applicant,
however, at this stage, the memorandum statements of the co-
accused persons prima facie indicate his involvement in the
commission of the offence. It is further reflected from the record that
the present applicant has criminal antecedents, including one case
under the NDPS Act, in which he is already on bail and the said
case is still pending for prosecution evidence, which indicates that
the applicant is a habitual offender, further he has misused the bail
granted to him earlier and also in light of the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused
therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents,
this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the
applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of
applicant - Mahendra Verma, involved in Crime No. 12/2026
registered at Police Station, Fingeshwar, District- Gariyabandh
(C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B) of NDPS
Act, is rejected.
7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to
proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance
forthwith.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Kunal
